slide1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Presentation date: 19.01.2010 Jari Kiirla PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Presentation date: 19.01.2010 Jari Kiirla

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 13

Presentation date: 19.01.2010 Jari Kiirla - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 114 Views
  • Uploaded on

Operator configurable traffic handling in multi layer WCDMA network based on capability, service and load. Presentation date: 19.01.2010 Jari Kiirla. Supervisor: Prof. Riku Jäntti Instructor: M.Sc. Tarja Hiltunen. Outline. Background Objectives Layering in multi layer WCDMA network

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Presentation date: 19.01.2010 Jari Kiirla' - basil-sandoval


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

Operator configurable traffic handling in multi layer WCDMA network based on capability, service and load

Presentation date: 19.01.2010

Jari Kiirla

Supervisor: Prof. Riku Jäntti

Instructor: M.Sc. Tarja Hiltunen

outline
Outline
  • Background
  • Objectives
  • Layering in multi layer WCDMA network
  • Capabilities, services and loads in WCDMA
  • Proposed alternative solutions
  • Analysis of alternatives
  • Conclusions
background
Background
  • Traffic amount is rapidly growing in WCDMA networks (especially packet data traffic) and operators need more spectrum.
  • Operators get new frequency bands for WCDMA usage (i.e. old GSM frequency band).
  • The amount of multi layer and multi band WCDMA networks is increasing
  • Simultaneously new packet data features are introduced which increase data rates, increase spectral efficiency and reduce UE battery usage.
  • Only new UEs support new features.
  • New features require new HW and SW in NodeB.
  • New features cannot be introduced to all frequency layers.
  • Traffic needs to be directed to “correct” layer to maximize the capacity.
  • “Correct” layer can be defined based on capability, service and load.
objectives
Objectives
  • To define operator configurable traffic handling for multi layer WCDMA networks which is based on capability, service and load.
  • Two main requirements are:
    • To have a flexible because different operators have different needs:
      • Number of frequency layers and frequency bands
      • Different features are utilized
    • To have a easy to use operator interface for configuring work.
      • Operator needs to understand easily how to configure the system to get the desired results.
      • Amount of configuration work should be minimized.
layering in multi layer wcdma network
Layering in multi layer WCDMA network
  • UE is from Radio Resource Control (RRC) point of view in some state.
  • In different states the layer change mechanisms are different.
    • Initial camping
    • Cell reselection
    • Handover
capabilities in wcdma
Capabilities in WCDMA
  • There are lots of different capabilities.
  • UE indicates it capability to network in RRC connection request and RRC connection complete messages.
  • Most important capabilities are related to HSPA and its evolution features.
    • 7 most important capabilities were selected.
  • Band capability is also important due to new bands which are taken into use.
service in wcdma
Service in WCDMA
  • There are lots of different parameter related to services that UE is using.
  • Here the most interesting ones:
    • Traffic class
    • RAB asymmetry indicator
    • Maximum bit rate (separately for UL and DL)
    • Guaranteed bit rate (separately for UL and DL)
    • Traffic handling priority (valid only for interactive traffic class)
    • Allocation/Retention priority
  • Only traffic class was chosen. It contains:
    • Conversational
    • Streaming
    • Interactive
    • Background.
load in wcdma
Load in WCDMA
  • We have UL and DL load.
  • UL load is noise rise in NodeB antenna.
  • DL load is transmission power.
  • Many different methods to define load -> out of the scope of this thesis.
  • However, effect of load has been taken into account in decision making algorithm.
proposed alternative solutions
Proposed alternative solutions
  • Three different alternatives are made based on initial analysis. They basic principles:
  • Basic principle of alternative A:
    • Selected capability based HOs are activated in cell level and decision is based on actual capability
  • Basic principle of alternative B:
    • Capability based HO is activated in cell level and RNC decides the need for capability based HO based on actual capability
  • Basic principle of alternative C:
    • Capability based HO is activated in cell level and decision for capability based HO is done based on preferred layer definition and not based on actual capability.
analysis of alternatives
Analysis of alternatives
  • Do they satisfy the operators needs well enough? Use case analysis is used.
  • How simply it is to understand the needed configuration work in use cases?
  • The amount of configuration work?
use cases

F5 (DC-HSDPA)

F3 (HSPA)

F1 (R99)

F6 (R99)

F4 (DC-HSDPA&MIMO)

F2 (HSPA&CS voice over HSPA)

1.5GHz

2GHz

Use cases
  • Example of use case:
  • 4 different use cases are used.
  • 2 are based on current plans of operators
results
Results
  • All alternatives fulfill the operator requirements in needed level
  • Configuration work in alternatives A and B is big.
  • Also alternatives A and B started to become complex when number of different capabilities increased.
    • This also increases possibility for faulty configuration .
  • Alternative C was chosen.
conclusions
Conclusions
  • There are many different alternative ways to satisfy operators requirements.
  • It is good to avoid complexity.
    • Part of the quality comes when needed configuration work is easily understood.
  • Further work is needed to evaluate how the load should be defined.